Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO will ask questions which can be answered with a yes or no.
2.When Pro answers with a Yes or a No, he should give an explanation for his answer.
3. Pro doesn't have to answer with a yes or no but if he does not answer with a yes or a no, he must give us his reasons for this decision.
4. Con may ask only ten questions per round.
5. In round 4, Con will try to show us where Pro made a Contradiction.
6. In round 5 Pro will defend Cons accusations. Then Con will summarize this debate. He may not make new arguments or present any contradictions in this round.

::Important::
Con can only use the information from this debate. So, if I say that I like color blue but in my profile or another debate or the comment section of any debate (this one included), I said otherwise, my opponent will not be allowed to use that information against me. So, only what I say in this debate counts and can be used against me.

1. I am usually called Thegreatandamazingkingoftheuniverseplushesverypretty. I can't answer this with a yes or a no.
2. Somwhere around 2013 (yeah, the world doesn't end in 2012, sorry). I can't answer this with a yes or a no.
3. 8 and a half.I can't answer this with a yes or no.
4. Male.I can't answer this with a yes or no.
5. Yes
6. Any holiday I can, for example, Christmas and St. Patricks day.I can't answer this with a yes or no
7. Yes
8. Yes, that is how I contact my God.
9. Yes
10. Dunno, they left me at the age of four.I can't answer this with a yes or no

1. Why not ? I feel good when I contact God via drugs.
2. Yes, via machine, though.
3. See number two.
4. ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM (I ignored the question as asked)
5. There's no official name. I usually call it "Hahahhahahhahahahhahah......HAAAAA!!!...hehhehhehhehe"
6. Yes, I exist don't I ?
7. Mostly Cocaine. Not this:

8. Yes, I am in denial when it comes to some things.
9. I don't know.
10. Because my parents never told me.

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. I don't understand, sorry.
4. No, I say what I feel like saying then I hate myself for it.
5. Generally, yes..
6. No, I prefer my enemies.
7. Yes, do you want to go out? No homo.
8. Yes, I LOVE myself.
9. I assume that you meant to say, do you like *to* debate. If so then generally yes.
10. No, if you respond then I'll begin to eat kfc as an attempt to kill myself.

1.) I asked in round 2, question 8- I asked "Are you in denial?". He answered "Yes, I am in denial when it comes to some things." But, by knowing that he is in denial it is impossible for him to be in denial. A person can't be knowingly in denial. So, he contradicts himself there.

2.) He said that he enjoys eating; yet, he admits to using cocaine. One of the side effects of cocaine is a lessened appetite.

3.) In round 4, he says that he will attempt to kill himself by eating KFC. If he posts in round 5, then he will have to admit he is a failure, which will be very funny. If he does not, then he won't be able to defend himself and will loose the debate. So, it comes down to whether he values this debate or his reputation more.

It sure is fun to debate you! Anyhow, I will win because I'm the best around.

1. Denial
"by knowing that he is in denial it is impossible for him to be in denial."

Definition of denial:
"an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse. The politician issued a denial of his opponent's charges"
Dictionary.com

Argument:
My opponents logic does not follow the definition. I have to know in order to deny something!

2. Eating
"He said that he enjoys eating; yet, he admits to using cocaine"
Indeed.
"One of the side effects of cocaine is a lessened appetite."
A lessened appetite doesn't mean that I enjoy the food less. The food tastes the same, I just eat less of it and not so frequently. For example, I drink a lot of water hence I don't feel like eating for the entire day, but when I do eat, my favorite food is still my favorite food and I still enjoy it.

Maybe, cocaine makes you enjoy the food less but that is not what my opponent is arguing.

3. I'm a failure
I don't care about my reputations nor do I have one to begin with. So ha!

I think I am supposed to summarize the round. I just would like to make one clarification.

On the first instance regarding denial, what I said is that it is impossible for you to know that you are in a state of denial. If you accept that you are in denial, you are no longer in denial. Thus, you contradict yourself.

According to my definition I HAVE TO KNOW in order to be in denial. My definition was not attacked hence I win. Also, HOW is providing a definition bad conduct? How does one make sense of this LOL? Can't say I expected better from m93.

Reasons for voting decision: Eh, the whole denial thing seemed a bit of a stretch. If RougeFox had managed to trap V0A into any more substantial contradictions, I'd let it pass, but it's certainly not good enough to win this debate on. It is quite possible to live in a state of denial on an issue, and in rare moments of candor admit to being willingly self-deluded. I'd say Pro won this one.

Reasons for voting decision: I bought Con's "denial" argument. Pro using the definition to refute it is bad conduct; further, the fact is a fact- if you're in denial, you can't really know that you're in denial. Otherwise, you're not in denial.

Reasons for voting decision: Con was centimeters away from winning. His argument about denial should have won him the round. But, he did not attack vardas' definition of denial. If he did, he wins, since "denial" is different from "being in denial". Instead, con's argument does not apply to pro's def, and thats the difference.